309 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32499297)
1. Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study.
Devji T; Carrasco-Labra A; Qasim A; Phillips M; Johnston BC; Devasenapathy N; Zeraatkar D; Bhatt M; Jin X; Brignardello-Petersen R; Urquhart O; Foroutan F; Schandelmaier S; Pardo-Hernandez H; Vernooij RW; Huang H; Rizwan Y; Siemieniuk R; Lytvyn L; Patrick DL; Ebrahim S; Furukawa T; Nesrallah G; Schünemann HJ; Bhandari M; Thabane L; Guyatt GH
BMJ; 2020 Jun; 369():m1714. PubMed ID: 32499297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol.
Johnston BC; Ebrahim S; Carrasco-Labra A; Furukawa TA; Patrick DL; Crawford MW; Hemmelgarn BR; Schunemann HJ; Guyatt GH; Nesrallah G
BMJ Open; 2015 Oct; 5(10):e007953. PubMed ID: 26428330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Minimal important differences for improvement in shoulder condition patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review to inform a
Hao Q; Devji T; Zeraatkar D; Wang Y; Qasim A; Siemieniuk RAC; Vandvik PO; Lähdeoja T; Carrasco-Labra A; Agoritsas T; Guyatt G
BMJ Open; 2019 Feb; 9(2):e028777. PubMed ID: 30787096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. An extension minimal important difference credibility item addressing construct proximity is a reliable alternative to the correlation item.
Wang Y; Devji T; Carrasco-Labra A; Qasim A; Hao Q; Kum E; Devasenapathy N; King MT; Terluin B; Terwee CB; Walsh M; Furukawa TA; Tsujimoto Y; Guyatt GH
J Clin Epidemiol; 2023 May; 157():46-52. PubMed ID: 36878330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Credibility and Generalization of the Minimally Important Difference Concept in Dermatology: A Scoping Review.
Speeckaert R; Belpaire A; Herbelet S; Lambert J; van Geel N
JAMA Dermatol; 2022 Nov; 158(11):1304-1314. PubMed ID: 36044227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Serious reporting deficiencies exist in minimal important difference studies: current state and suggestions for improvement.
Carrasco-Labra A; Devji T; Qasim A; Phillips M; Johnston BC; Devasenapathy N; Zeraatkar D; Bhatt M; Jin X; Brignardello-Petersen R; Urquhart O; Foroutan F; Schandelmaier S; Pardo-Hernandez H; Vernooij RW; Huang H; Rizwan Y; Siemieniuk R; Lytvyn L; Patrick DL; Ebrahim S; Furukawa TA; Nesrallah G; Schunemann HJ; Bhandari M; Thabane L; Guyatt GH
J Clin Epidemiol; 2022 Oct; 150():25-32. PubMed ID: 35760237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Application of minimal important differences in degenerative knee disease outcomes: a systematic review and case study to inform
Devji T; Guyatt GH; Lytvyn L; Brignardello-Petersen R; Foroutan F; Sadeghirad B; Buchbinder R; Poolman RW; Harris IA; Carrasco-Labra A; Siemieniuk RAC; Vandvik PO
BMJ Open; 2017 May; 7(5):e015587. PubMed ID: 28495818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A systematic survey identified methodological issues in studies estimating anchor-based minimal important differences in patient-reported outcomes.
Wang Y; Devji T; Qasim A; Hao Q; Wong V; Bhatt M; Prasad M; Wang Y; Noori A; Xiao Y; Ghadimi M; Lozano LEC; Phillips MR; Carrasco-Labra A; King M; Terluin B; Terwee CB; Walsh M; Furukawa TA; Guyatt GH
J Clin Epidemiol; 2022 Feb; 142():144-151. PubMed ID: 34752937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Minimal important difference estimates for patient-reported outcomes: A systematic survey.
Carrasco-Labra A; Devji T; Qasim A; Phillips MR; Wang Y; Johnston BC; Devasenapathy N; Zeraatkar D; Bhatt M; Jin X; Brignardello-Petersen R; Urquhart O; Foroutan F; Schandelmaier S; Pardo-Hernandez H; Hao Q; Wong V; Ye Z; Yao L; Vernooij RWM; Huang H; Zeng L; Rizwan Y; Siemieniuk R; Lytvyn L; Patrick DL; Ebrahim S; Furukawa TA; Nesrallah G; Schünemann HJ; Bhandari M; Thabane L; Guyatt GH
J Clin Epidemiol; 2021 May; 133():61-71. PubMed ID: 33321175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Minimally Important Differences in Patient or Proxy-Reported Outcome Studies Relevant to Children: A Systematic Review.
Ebrahim S; Vercammen K; Sivanand A; Guyatt GH; Carrasco-Labra A; Fernandes RM; Crawford MW; Nesrallah G; Johnston BC
Pediatrics; 2017 Mar; 139(3):. PubMed ID: 28196931
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The minimal important difference of patient-reported outcome measures related to female urinary incontinence: a systematic review.
Barbosa-Silva J; Calixtre LB; Von Piekartz D; Driusso P; Armijo-Olivo S
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Mar; 24(1):60. PubMed ID: 38459428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Patient-reported questionnaires in MS rehabilitation: responsiveness and minimal important difference of the multiple sclerosis questionnaire for physiotherapists (MSQPT).
van der Maas NA
BMC Neurol; 2017 Mar; 17(1):50. PubMed ID: 28302081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Estimating minimal important differences for several scales assessing function and quality of life in patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Hodgkins P; Lloyd A; Erder MH; Setyawan J; Weiss MD; Sasané R; Nafees B
CNS Spectr; 2017 Feb; 22(1):31-40. PubMed ID: 27535815
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Establishing anchor-based minimally important differences (MID) with the EORTC quality-of-life measures: a meta-analysis protocol.
Musoro ZJ; Hamel JF; Ediebah DE; Cocks K; King MT; Groenvold M; Sprangers MAG; Brandberg Y; Velikova G; Maringwa J; Flechtner HH; Bottomley A; Coens C;
BMJ Open; 2018 Jan; 8(1):e019117. PubMed ID: 29326191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Minimal important differences for fatigue patient reported outcome measures-a systematic review.
Nordin Å; Taft C; Lundgren-Nilsson Å; Dencker A
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 May; 16():62. PubMed ID: 27387456
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Mind the methods of determining minimal important differences: three critical issues to consider.
Devji T; Carrasco-Labra A; Guyatt G
Evid Based Ment Health; 2021 May; 24(2):77-81. PubMed ID: 32839275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Using multiple anchor- and distribution-based estimates to evaluate clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Biologic Response Modifiers (FACT-BRM) instrument.
Yost KJ; Sorensen MV; Hahn EA; Glendenning GA; Gnanasakthy A; Cella D
Value Health; 2005; 8(2):117-27. PubMed ID: 15804320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Psychometric properties and minimal important differences of SF-36 in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.
Witt S; Krauss E; Barbero MAN; Müller V; Bonniaud P; Vancheri C; Wells AU; Vasakova M; Pesci A; Klepetko W; Seeger W; Crestani B; Leidl R; Holle R; Schwarzkopf L; Guenther A
Respir Res; 2019 Mar; 20(1):47. PubMed ID: 30823880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The measurement of collaboration within healthcare settings: a systematic review of measurement properties of instruments.
Walters SJ; Stern C; Robertson-Malt S
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2016 Apr; 14(4):138-97. PubMed ID: 27532315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Distribution- and anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference on patient-reported outcome questionnaires in oncology: a structured review.
Ousmen A; Touraine C; Deliu N; Cottone F; Bonnetain F; Efficace F; Brédart A; Mollevi C; Anota A
Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2018 Dec; 16(1):228. PubMed ID: 30537955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
